What we do want is to see a
mechanism for the FAA to consider
airline-based alternate pathways,
where airlines can come in and put
that skin in the game. We’d like
the opportunity to do that, and we
think the FAA could look at some
alternative pathways to allow us to
do it. And that would go a long way
in bridging that gap between not
just reaching out to young people
but offering a more seamless career
trajectory to those who are attracted
to the career.

All this is part of the bigger
picture. There are other things we
need to be doing, too. We know
career certainty is important. Our
airlines have increased involvement
with the universities and have
developed flow and bridge programs
from university or training, to a
regional, to a mainline — they have
a certain career path. They can go
to jetBlue or Delta or American or
United — any of the mainlines —
and that career certainty is helpful.

But we also need to restore certainty
to the training and point-of-entry
side, make sure pilots are not
graduating from highly structured
training programs only to build
hours without building meaningful
experience. Instead, we should
give them a certain training and
professional career pipeline through
an alternative pathway airlines can
provide, offering high value and
focused on true competency and
mastery of skills. We can provide
this, and we can provide it very,
very safely.

JEFF MULDER: Paul, I know
that your members probably are
dealing with some of these same
issues. They’re worried about the
technology that’s required these
days and competing with other
industries for workforce. Can you
describe what your industry is
trying to do about it and some ideas
they may have?

PAUL FELDMAN: There is a real
focus on the pilot shortage, as there
should be, but in terms of skilled
technicians, there’s also a shortage.

And I think that has been really
brought home to us, as Pete Bunce
(GAMA president and CEO) and I
have traveled around the country.

You go to Minnesota and you meet
at Cirrus, and they have 125 job
openings now. You go to Delaware
and talk to our member, Dassault
Falcon Jet, and they also have
openings. So there are good jobs
that we need to have people step up
and take.

Our companies already do a
tremendous amount of work,
working with high schools, working
with elementary schools, working
with colleges to build that pipeline,
but it’s still not enough. And I think
from our standpoint, there is a real
opportunity maybe to bring the
industry together and figure out
how we maybe pull all these efforts
together. And there are also federal
and state resources that really
focus in on this as well, and other
industries have been able to get that
kind of federal attention and money
to develop model programs and
really drive that. So I think that’s
something we should look at and
have a conversation about and see if
we can move that forward.

GAMA has a great program called
the Aviation Design Challenge,
which is a nationwide competition,
where last year we had over 70
high schools in 30 states, and
AAAE actually has been very
helpful in getting information out
to high schools around the area.

The winning school gets to go to
Washington state and build a plane
over a two-week period, and so for
those high school students, that’s
a fantastic opportunity. And Mark
was referencing all the work they’re
doing with STEM education as well.

JEFF MULDER: You see other
industry sectors actively addressing
the workforce issue collaboratively,
and I think all of us are trying to do
the best we can.

One of the frustrations, I think,
is that the federal government
isn’t necessarily playing a role
where they should. The FAA
used to be an advocacy agency
for aviation, and they seem to
have made a philosophical shift
to just completely regulatory. I’m
not indicating that was a wrong
choice, but I think it’s had some real
implications. I’m curious as to what
the panel thinks about that and how
it’s impacted the industry over the
last 15, 20 years.

ED BOLEN: Well, I think it is
something that the FAA could play
an important role in, promoting
the value of aviation to the United
States. When we talk about things
like aviation safety, what we really
mean is we want to find a way
to foster mobility and have more
aviation while constantly improving
safety. We can have zero aviation
accidents by having zero aviation.

That’s not what America needs.

That’s not what anyone wants.

And so there is kind of a balance
between how we promote the
industry, how we foster the industry
and how we constantly enhance
the safety of the system, and I think
that’s a worthy objective and not
one that is well stated.

MARK BAKER: I think I’d add on
a little bit to what Ed is saying
(about aviation accidents). One of
the things we did this year is put
it in context of all the other things
that people do, and there are six
times as many people who get killed
on motorcycles across the United
States. Almost 20 times as many
people get killed at home falling off
ladders and getting electrocuted at
home compared to what happens